א׳
א׳מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמֹעַ תְּרוּעַת הַשּׁוֹפָר בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כט א) "יוֹם תְּרוּעָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם". וְשׁוֹפָר שֶׁתּוֹקְעִין בּוֹ בֵּין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה בֵּין בְּיוֹבֵל הוּא קֶרֶן הַכְּבָשִׂים הַכָּפוּף. וְכָל הַשּׁוֹפָרוֹת פְּסוּלִין חוּץ מִקֶּרֶן הַכֶּבֶשׂ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה תְּרוּעָה בְּשׁוֹפָר בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּיוֹבֵל (ויקרא כה ט) "וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ שׁוֹפַר" וְכוּ' (ויקרא כה ט) "תַּעֲבִירוּ שׁוֹפָר". וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ מַה תְּרוּעַת יוֹבֵל בְּשׁוֹפָר אַף תְּרוּעַת רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה בְּשׁוֹפָר:
1It is a positive commandment from the Torah1Sefer Hamitzvot (Positive Commandment 170) and Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 405) count this mitzvah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. to hear the sounding of the shofar2The mitzvah is not the blowing of the shofar, as might be inferred from the verse, but rather listening to the blowing. The blessing recited before the fulfillment of this mitzvah, praising God for commanding us "to listen to the sounding of the shofar (Chapter 3, Halachah 10)," emphasizes this principle.Accordingly, the Rambam writes (Chapter 1, Halachah 8) that a person who blows a shofar without hearing it does not fulfill the mitzvah. Conversely, he writes (Responsum 78) that if the mitzvah were the blowing of the shofar, a person who heard it being blown, but did not blow it himself, would not fulfill his obligation.It must be noted that the published text of the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon states that the mitzvah is "to sound the shofar." Also, concerning the blowing of the shofar in the yovel, the Rambam himself writes that: "it is a positive mitzvah to blow the shofar on the tenth of Tishre... (Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:10)." on Rosh HaShanah, as [Numbers 29:1] states: "It shall be a day of sounding [the ram's horn] for you."The3Though the ram's horn is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, our Sages derived the requirement as the Rambam explains. shofar, which is sounded both on Rosh HaShanah and for the yovel,4to announce the freeing of the slaves and the return of property, as explained in Leviticus 25:9-13. is a bent5Rams' horns are always bent. This, too, has homiletic significance, referring to the bending over of our proud hearts. (See Rosh HaShanah 26b.) ram's horn.6Rosh HaShanah 16a states that a ram's horn is used to recall the akedah (binding) of Isaac. All shofarot other than that of a ram are unacceptable.7The Rambam's opinion is based on the statement of Rav Levi (Rosh Hashanah 26b), who declares: "The mitzvah of Rosh Hashanah is to be performed with bent [shofarot]," implying the use of a sheep's or ram's horn for that is their natural shape.The Ra'avad, Rabbenu Asher, and many other Rishonim maintain that Rav Levi desired to designate the type of shofar which is most preferable to use, but did not intend to disqualify the horns of other animals. Their view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:1), which states that it is desirable to use the horn of a ram. However, if that is not possible, the horn of any animal may be used. The only exceptions are the horns of a cow and some wild animals whose horns are single, solid entities (Ramban).Even though the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah8The above verse merely mentions יום תרועה - "a day of sounding" - without stating what must be sounded. is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah [it was derived by our Sages in the following manner]. Concerning the yovel, [Leviticus 25:9] states: "You shall make a proclamation, sounding the shofar... you shall proclaim with the shofar." The oral tradition9Rosh Hashanah 33b explains that just as the "sounding" required by the Torah in the yovel requires a shofar, so, too, the "sounding" on Rosh HaShanah requires a shofar.10An analogy (גזרה שוה) is drawn between the two verses, to teach that the same type of "sounding" is required on both occasions. Thus, since the Torah specifies states that the "sounding" of the yovel is carried out with a shofar, that same instrument is used on Rosh HaShanah.
ב׳בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיוּ תּוֹקְעִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה בְּשׁוֹפָר אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי חֲצוֹצְרוֹת מִן הַצְּדָדִין. הַשּׁוֹפָר מַאֲרִיךְ וְהַחֲצוֹצְרוֹת מְקַצְּרוֹת שֶׁמִּצְוַת הַיּוֹם בְּשׁוֹפָר. וְלָמָּה תּוֹקְעִין עִמּוֹ בַּחֲצוֹצְרוֹת מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים צח ו) "בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת וְקוֹל שׁוֹפָר הָרִיעוּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ ה'". אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר מְקוֹמוֹת אֵין תּוֹקְעִין בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אֶלָּא בְּשׁוֹפָר בִּלְבַד:
2In the Temple,1As will be explained in the commentary to Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 7, Halachah 13, in certain contexts the Rambam interprets the expression במקדש - literally, "in the holy place" - as referring to the entire city of Jerusalem. (See also the Rambam's commentary to the mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 4:1.) However, in the present context, it refers to the Temple alone. Thus, Rosh HaShanah 27a states that the shofar was sounded in this manner only "on the Temple Mount and at the eastern gate." on Rosh HaShanah, they would blow [the shofar in the following manner]: There was one shofar and two trumpets, [one on either] side.2The verse from Psalms mentions "the voice of the shofar," using the singular. In contrast, it refers to "trumpets." The sounding of the shofar was extended,3for greater emphasis while that of the trumpets was shortened, because the mitzvah of the day is performed with the shofar.4Rosh HaShanah 26b contrasts the sounding of the shofar and trumpets on Rosh HaShanah with their being blown on a fast day declared because of unfavorable conditions. On the latter occasion, the sounding of the trumpets was emphasized in keeping with the instructions of Numbers 10:9.Why were the trumpets sounded together with it? Because [Psalms 98:6] states: "You shall sound trumpets and the voice of the shofar before God, the King."5Rosh Hashanah 27a states that the expression "before God" implies: in the Temple. However, in other places6even within Jerusalem on Rosh Hashanah, only the shofar is blown.
ג׳שׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם אֵין תּוֹקְעִין בּוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְאִם תָּקַע יָצָא. וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת אִם תָּקַע בּוֹ לֹא יָצָא. שׁוֹפָר הַגָּזוּל שֶׁתָּקַע בּוֹ יָצָא שֶׁאֵין הַמִּצְוָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע בּוֹ וְלֹא הִגְבִּיהוֹ הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ יָצָא וְאֵין בַּקּוֹל דִּין גֵּזֶל. וְכֵן שׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עוֹלָה לֹא יִתְקַע בּוֹ וְאִם תָּקַע יָצָא שֶׁאֵין בַּקּוֹל דִּין מְעִילָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר וַהֲלֹא נֶהֱנָה בִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל. מִצְוֹת לֹא לֵהָנוֹת נִתְּנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַמֻּדָּר הֲנָיָה מִשּׁוֹפָר מֻתָּר לִתְקֹעַ בּוֹ תְּקִיעָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה:
3At the outset, we should not blow a shofar of idol worship.1For it is not appropriate to use such a shofar for a mitzvah. However, if one sounded it, one has fulfilled his obligation.2The Maggid Mishneh explains that this refers to a shofar belonging to a gentile that was used in the worship of idols, or a shofar which was itself worshiped as an idol. However, as will be explained, if the shofar of idol worship belonged to a Jew or if it was made from the horn of an animal that was sacrificed to an idol, even after the fact, its use is not acceptable. [In contrast,] should one sound a shofar belonging to an apostate city,3עיר הנדחת. Deuteronomy 13:13-19 describes the laws governing a city in which the majority of the inhabitants have turned to idol worship. All the idolaters must be slain and all the homes and property burned. No benefit may be derived from them. (See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, Chapter 4.) one has not fulfilled one's obligation.4Rosh Hashanah 28a explains that the difference between a shofar of idol worship and one of an apostate city is that all the property within the latter must be destroyed. Since ultimately this shofar must be burnt, even before it is actually destroyed it is no longer considered to be an existent entity. Thus, we may not use it on Rosh HaShanah, because a shofar used for the mitzvah must be of a specific size - slightly larger than one's hand, as mentioned in Halachah 5 - and a nonexistent entity has no size at all.A shofar of idol worship must also be destroyed. However, should the gentile negate its connection to idol worship before it is acquired by a Jew, it need not be destroyed, as stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:8. Since there is a possibility that it will not have to be destroyed, it is considered to be an existent entity and may be used for the mitzvah.This principle applies only to aspects of idol worship belonging to a gentile. It is impossible to negate the connection between an idol worshiped by a Jew and its forbidden nature. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:9.) Hence, a Jew's shofar of idol worship may not be used. Similarly, if a Jew has acquired a shofar of idol worship that belonged to a gentile before the latter negated its connection to idol worship, the Jew is no longer capable of negating this connection. Therefore, such a shofar may not be used on Rosh HaShanah.Also, once an animal has been sacrificed to an idol, there is no possibility of negating its connection to idol worship. Hence, its horn may not be used as a shofar.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:3-4) quotes all the above laws as halachah. The Ramah relates that certain authorities recommend not using even a gentile's shofar of idol worship unless we know that he negated its connection with idol worship before Rosh HaShanah begins.Concerning a stolen shofar:5one who blows it fulfills his obligation - Though in general, a mitzvah performed with a stolen article is not acceptable (see Chapter 8, Halachah 1; Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 6:7), this case is an exception... one who blows it fulfills his obligation, because the mitzvah is only to listen to the sound,6Hence, a person who listens to the shofar being blown fulfills his obligation even though the listener does not touch [the shofar]7Based on this statement, the commentaries propose that, according to the Rambam, a person who blows a shofar without putting his lips to it fulfills his obligation. The Ramban (see Maggid Mishneh 1:6) does not accept this view. or lift it up.8Accordingly, after the fact, by hearing such a shofar, one has fulfilled one's obligation, because The laws of theft do not apply to sound alone.9for sound is not a physical entity that can be possessed. Rabbenu Manoach and the Kessef Mishneh cite other examples from Nedarim 13b-15a, where the Sages differentiate between sound and material entities.The Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 3:1) derives this law as follows:Everyone agrees that a stolen lulav is unacceptable. What is the difference between a shofar and a lulav?Rabbi Yosse responded: "Concerning a lulav, [Leviticus 23:40] states: 'You shall take for yourself,' implying that only 'your own' is acceptable. In contrast, [Numbers 29:1] states: 'It shall be a day of blowing for you,' implying that regardless [of the nature of the shofar used, the blowing shall be 'for you']".Rabbi Eliezer explained: "There, [concerning the lulav,] one must perform the mitzvah with the lulav itself. Here, [concerning the shofar,] one performs the mitzvah with its sound."Nevertheless, because a sin is associated with this mitzvah, Ashkenazic custom is that no blessing should be recited before blowing such a shofar (Magen Avraham 586:4).Similarly, a shofar from an10animal consecrated as an... olah offering should not be sounded,11Once an animal is consecrated as an olah offering, no part of its body may be used any other purpose. Therefore, we should not use such a shofar from such an animal for any purpose whatsoever.This halachah applies before the blood from the sacrifice has been offered on the altar. Afterwards, the skin and horns of the animal become the property of the priests and may be used for mundane purposes (Rashi, Rosh Hashanah 28a). but12In Hilchot Me'ilah 5:16, the Rambam writes:Concerning the sound, sight, and smell of consecrated objects: We should not derive benefit from them. However, all the implications of the prohibition against using them for mundane purposes do not apply. if one sounds it, he fulfills his obligation, because the laws of13The prohibitions forbidding use of consecrated articles for mundane purposes... מעילה do not apply with regard to sound alone. If you ask: "Behold, he has derived benefit from hearing [the shofar's] sound?"14Though the laws of מעילה do not apply to sound, there is still a Rabbinic prohibition against benefiting from the sound of consecrated articles. Therefore, one might think that we would be unable to fulfill the mitzvah with such a shofar (Lechem Mishneh). Accordingly, the Rambam explains: - mitzvot were not given for our benefit.15Rashi (Rosh Hashanah, ibid.) states: "the mitzvot were not given to the Jewish people for their enjoyment, but rather as a yoke."This concept has relevance in the ethical, as well as the halachic sphere. In the tenth chapter of Hilchot Teshuvah, the Rambam writes:One who serves [God] out of love occupies himself with the Torah and the mitzvot...for no ulterior motive, not because of fear that evil will occur, nor in order to acquire benefit...The great Sages would command the more understanding and brilliant among their students in private: "Do not be like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a gift. Rather, since he is the Master, it is fitting to serve Him"; i.e., serve [Him] out of love.The above is not intended to imply that a person should not feel happy and fulfilled in the service of God. Quite the contrary; indeed, the Rambam concludes these halachot (Chapter 8, Halachah 15) with a description of the importance of happiness in the service of God. However, the intent is that the happiness should be a byproduct and not the goal of the service. We should be totally committed to fulfilling God's will, and the expression of that commitment should generate satisfaction and joy.Based on this concept - that mitzvot were not given for our benefit;a person who vows not to derive benefit from a shofar may use it to blow the teki'ot required to fulfill the mitzvah. - Doing so is not considered a violation of his vow.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:5) advises that the person who took the vow should not blow the shofar himself [because many consider that to be a pleasurable experience (Taz)]. Rather, he should hear the teki'ot from a colleague.Also, the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) notes that if a person specifically states that he vows not to listen to a colleague's teki'ot, he may not hear that person blow the shofar on Rosh HaShanah, because a vow (neder) can also negate a mitzvah. (See Hilchot Nedarim 3:6-8.)Based on this concept, a person who vows not to derive benefit from a shofar may use it to blow the teki'ot required to fulfill the mitzvah.
ד׳שׁוֹפָר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת יוֹם טוֹב וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הַשּׁוֹפָר בְּרֹאשׁ הָאִילָן אוֹ מֵעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וְאֵין לוֹ שׁוֹפָר אֶלָּא הוּא אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בָּאִילָן וְאֵינוֹ שָׁט עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם כְּדֵי לַהֲבִיאוֹ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְכִין אוֹתוֹ אוֹ עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ מְלָאכָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְיוֹם טוֹב עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. מֻתָּר לִתֵּן בְּתוֹכוֹ מַיִם אוֹ יַיִן אוֹ חֹמֶץ בְּיוֹם טוֹב כְּדֵי לְצַחְצְחוֹ. וְלֹא יִתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מֵי רַגְלַיִם לְעוֹלָם מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו:
4Regarding a shofar to be used on Rosh HaShanah: It is forbidden to violate the festival laws to obtain it. This applies1not only when obtaining the shofar requires the violation of a melachah (forbidden labor) prohibited by the Torah, but even when the forbidden practice is in the category of sh'vut.2In Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Rambam defines sh'vut as a prohibition instituted by the Sages because a particular activity resembles one forbidden as a melachah by Torah law, or because performing it may cause one to perform a melachah.Though these prohibitions are of Rabbinic origin, the Sages reinforced the power of their decrees and equated them with Torah law. Hence, just as one may not violate a melachah forbidden by the Torah to obtain a shofar, so, too, it is forbidden to violate a sh'vut forbidden by Rabbinic law (Kessef Mishneh). [Nevertheless, note the clarification of this principle in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.]How is the above exemplified? If there is a shofar in a treetop or across a river3and that is the only shofar available - one may not climb the tree - lest one accidentally cut off a branch (ibid., 6) - and that is the only shofar available - one may not climb the tree or swim across the water to bring it.4lest one prepare a swimming aid (ibid., 23:5). The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 32b) mentions other examples of forbidden activities. Needless to say, we may not cut the shofar [from the animal's head]5In his commentary on the mishnah, the Rambam explains that this refers to cutting the horn off with a household knife. Since a craftsman's knife is not being used, cutting the shofar off is not forbidden by Torah law. Nevertheless, the Rambam uses the expression "needless to say," because such an activity bears a closer resemblance to one forbidden by Torah law than those mentioned previously. or perform a forbidden labor6cutting off the horn with a craftsman's knife [to prepare a shofar so that we may blow it].7[to prepare a shofar so that we may blow it]. [The rationale for the above is:] Blowing the shofar fulfills a positive commandment,8as stated in Halachah 1. while [the observance of] the festivals fulfills both a positive and a negative commandment.9In Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:2, the Rambam writes:Whoever rests from a melachah categorized as "work" on one of [these days] fulfills a positive commandment, because the Torah describes them as "days of rest"... if one performs a melachah that is not intended to prepare food,... one negates the performance of a positive commandment and transgresses a negative commandment, as [Leviticus 23:8] states: "You shall not perform any servile work." The observance of a positive commandment does not negate the observance of both a positive and negative commandment.10Though the performance of a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment (Yevamot 3b), that applies only when the negative commandment is not reinforced by a positive commandment, as in the case at hand.It is permitted to rinse a shofar with water, wine, or vinegar in order to improve its tone.11It is forbidden to prepare a utensil for use on a festival. (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:8.) However, this activity is not placed in that category (Rabbenu Manoach). However, as an expression of deference, one should never12i.e., even before Rosh HaShanah use urine [for that purpose], lest one view the mitzvot in a deprecating manner.13The Rambam concludes Hilchot Shechitah (14:16):...lest one view the mitzvot in a deprecating manner, because the deference is not to be granted to the mitzvot in and of themselves, but to the One who commanded us to fulfill them, blessed be He.
ה׳שִׁעוּר הַשּׁוֹפָר כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאחֲזֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ וְיֵרָאֶה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן. נִסְדַּק לְאָרְכּוֹ פָּסוּל. לְרָחְבּוֹ אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר בּוֹ כַּשִּׁעוּר כָּשֵׁר וּכְאִלּוּ נִכְרַת מִמְּקוֹם הַסֶּדֶק. נִקַּב אִם סְתָמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ פָּסוּל. סְתָמוֹ בְּמִינוֹ אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר רֻבּוֹ שָׁלֵם וְלֹא עִכְּבוּ הַנְּקָבִים שֶׁנִּסְתְּמוּ אֶת הַתְּקִיעָה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. קְדָחוֹ בְּזִכְרוּתוֹ כָּשֵׁר שֶׁמִּין בְּמִינוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ. דִּבֵּק שִׁבְרֵי שׁוֹפָרוֹת עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְאֶחָד פָּסוּל:
5The minimum size of a shofar is [a measure] sufficient that one may hold the shofar in one's hands [with the ends] visibly [protruding]1The protrusions are necessary lest one say that a person is producing the sounds by blowing into his hands without a shofar. on either side.2Niddah 26a defines this measure as "an expanded handbreadth." The Beit Yosef notes that, in this context, a handbreadth is defined as four thumbbreadths. Thus, the difference between the width of a thumb and the other fingers accounts for the "expansion." In modern measure, a handbreadth is considered between 8 (Shiurei Torah) and 9.6 (Chazon Ish) centimeters.Should a shofar be cracked lengthwise,3i.e., from its mouth to its end; it is unacceptable.4This is a quote from Rosh Hashanah 27b. The Rabbis have noted that, in contrast to a crack along the shofar's width, in this context no minimum figure is mentioned with regard to the portion of the shofar remaining uncracked. Two contrasting interpretations are offered to explain the difference.Some maintain that as long as the entire length (or the majority of the length) of the shofar is not cracked, the shofar is not disqualified. Others maintain that even the slightest crack along the length of the shofar disqualifies it, because the pressure of the blowing will cause the crack to grow until, ultimately, the entire shofar will be cracked (Rabbenu Asher; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 586:8).Concerning halachah l'ma'aseh, both the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (586:8) and the Mishnah Berurah (586:43) write that when no other shofar is available, one may rely on the first opinion. Nevertheless, even the latter opinion does not disqualify a shofar that is cracked lengthwise if it is tied firmly so that the crack will not expand, or if the shofar is heated and the crack closed. Some opinions also allow such a shofar to be used if the crack is plugged closed with other substances. Should it be cracked along its width5with the crack extending along the majority of the shofar's circumference (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim ibid., 9), - if a measure equivalent to the minimum size of a shofar remains,6Most authorities require a handbreadth to remain from the crack to the shofar's mouth (Kessef Mishneh). However, the Ba'al Ha'itur maintains that a shofar is acceptable even if the minimum measure remains only from the crack to the end of the shofar. it is kosher.7This applies even if the sound of the shofar is changed because of the crack (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). It is considered as if it were cut off at the place of the crack.8Hence, the crack does not disqualify it.[Regarding a shofar with] a hole: If it was plugged9In his commentary on the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 3:5), the Rambam writes that the hole must be plugged. This point is not accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 7), which emphasizes that if the hole is not plugged, the shofar is kosher even though its sound has changed. Nevertheless, the Ramah states that if another shofar is available, a shofar with a hole should not be used. with another substance,10i.e., any substance other than a ram's horn; it is unacceptable.11because the sound produced does not come from the shofar alone, but rather from the shofar and the other substance. If it was plugged with its own kind, it is kosher [under the following conditions]:the majority of the shofar remained whole;the plugging of the holes did not alter its sound.12These three conditions are dependent on the Rambam's interpretation of Rosh Hashanah 27b. Rabbenu Asher interprets the passage differently. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) favors the Rambam's interpretation, but states that under difficult circumstances, when no other shofar is available, one may rely on Rabbenu Asher's interpretation.If one [merely] perforated the insides of the horn,13the bonelike tissue inside the horn [but did not remove them,] it is kosher, because a substance of the same kind is not considered an intervening entity.14The presence of a foreign substance inside the shofar would cause it to be disqualified, as stated in the following halachah. However, since this tissue is considered to be part of the horn itself, the shofar is acceptable.The Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 586:15) quotes this law, but also adds that if one removed this tissue from the horn and then hollowed it out, the tissue would be unacceptable for use as a shofar. Should one stick together fragments of shofarot until one has constructed a shofar, it is unacceptable.15Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 27a explains that this construction is not called a shofar. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 10) states that this law applies even if the fragment of the shofar closest to one's mouth is of sufficient size to be considered a kosher shofar itself.
ו׳הוֹסִיף עָלָיו כָּל שֶׁהוּא בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ פָּסוּל. צִפָּהוּ זָהָב מִבִּפְנִים אוֹ בִּמְקוֹם הַנָּחַת פֶּה פָּסוּל. צִפָּהוּ מִבַּחוּץ אִם נִשְׁתַּנָּה קוֹלוֹ מִכְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה פָּסוּל וְאִם לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה כָּשֵׁר. נָתַן שׁוֹפָר בְּתוֹךְ שׁוֹפָר אִם קוֹל פְּנִימִי שָׁמַע יָצָא וְאִם קוֹל חִיצוֹן שָׁמַע לֹא יָצָא. הִרְחִיב אֶת הַקָּצָר וְקִצֵּר אֶת הָרָחָב פָּסוּל:
6If one made any addition to a shofar1whether from the mouthpiece or from the wider end (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 586:11). - whether of its kind2using a fragment of a ram's horn or from another substance3it is unacceptable. - On the surface, this law appears to be an extension of the principle mentioned in the last clause of the previous halachah. If so, one might question why the Rambam mentions them in two separate halachot. - it is unacceptable.Should one coat it with gold4or any other foreign substance from the inside or at the mouthpiece, it is unacceptable.5for the sound must come from the shofar itself. Though Rosh Hashanah 26b mentions that the mouth of the shofar used in the Temple was coated with gold, the place where the person blowing would put his mouth was not covered. Should one coat it6with gold or any other substance on the outside: If its sound is changed from what it was originally, it is not acceptable.7for then, the sound we hear is a product of both the shofar and the coating, and not the shofar alone.Based on this law, the Ramban advises against making designs in the shofar and coating them with paint or metal, for this may alter the shofar's sound and prevent the teki'ot from being acceptable. If its sound did not change, it is kosher.8All these laws are quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:16).Should one place one shofar within another: If one hears the sound of the inner shofar,9i.e., with the further end of the inner shofar protruding beyond that of the outer shofar one has fulfilled one's obligation.10for the outer shofar had no effect on the sound we hear. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 586:20) emphasizes that one may fulfill one's obligation under such circumstances only if the sound of the inner shofar remains totally unchanged. The teki'ot are unacceptable if its sound is altered. If one hears the outer shofar,11i.e., its edge protrudes beyond that of the inner shofar one has not fulfilled one's obligation.12for then, one is hearing the sound of two shofarot. The Torah commanded us to hear one shofar and not two (Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 27b).Should one widen the narrow portion of the shofar and narrow its wider end, the shofar is unacceptable.13Rosh Hashanah 27b explains the derivation of this law as follows: The terminology which Leviticus 25:9 uses when commanding us to blow the shofar, שופר והעברת, has an additional implication. That expression is also related to the word עבר, meaning "to pass." The manner in which we use the shofar must parallel the manner in which the ram passes by with it on its head.Based on the same principle, our Sages (ibid.) explain that a shofar is unacceptable if it was heated to the point that the horn became soft, and then turned inside out.
ז׳הָיָה אָרֹךְ וְקִצְּרוֹ כָּשֵׁר. גֵּרְדוֹ בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ אֲפִלּוּ הֶעֱמִידוֹ עַל גִּלְדּוֹ כָּשֵׁר. הָיָה קוֹלוֹ עָב אוֹ דַּק אוֹ צָרוּר כָּשֵׁר שֶׁכָּל הַקּוֹלוֹת כְּשֵׁרִין בְּשׁוֹפָר:
7If a shofar was long and one shortened it,1It makes no difference whether the portion is cut away from the shofar's mouthpiece or from its wider portion (Mishnah Berurah 586:63). it is kosher.2Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah 27b explains that the necessity of mentioning this law arises from the last clause of the previous halachah. Since we find that the Torah requires us to use the shofar in the same manner as which it was carried by the ram, a special teaching is necessary to inform us that a shofar is acceptable even if it was shortened.The Kessef Mishneh explains that such a shofar is acceptable even it was shortened because of a disqualifying factor which it possessed on the portion which was cut off. If one scraped away the horn3either from the inside - widening the hollow of the shofar - either from the inside or from the outside4scraping away its outer shell - even if one did so to the extent that all that remained was the thin external shell,5even if the sound of the shofar changes (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 586:13; Mishnah Berurah 586:65). it is kosher.6since no change is made in its fundamental shape.Regardless of whether [the shofar's] sound is heavy, thin, or raspy,7Rabbenu Manoach and the Kessef Mishneh translate צרור as "dry," explaining that blowing a shofar causes it to dry out and produce a raspy tone. Hence, it was customary to rinse it with water or wine, as mentioned in Halachah 4. it is kosher, because all the sounds produced by the shofar are kosher.8In his commentary on this clause, Rabbenu Manoach injects a spiritual concept emphasizing how the musical quality of the shofar's tones are not significant, but rather the stirring and rousing nature of the shofar's call which motivates the people to Teshuvah.
ח׳הַתּוֹקֵעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַמְּעָרָה. אוֹתָן הָעוֹמְדִים בְּתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר וְהַמְּעָרָה יָצְאוּ. וְהָעוֹמְדִים בַּחוּץ אִם קוֹל שׁוֹפָר שָׁמְעוּ יָצְאוּ. וְאִם קוֹל הֲבָרָה שָׁמְעוּ לֹא יָצְאוּ. וְכֵן הַתּוֹקֵעַ לְתוֹךְ חָבִית גְּדוֹלָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. אִם קוֹל שׁוֹפָר שָׁמַע יָצָא וְאִם קוֹל הֲבָרָה שָׁמַע לֹא יָצָא:
8When a person sounds a shofar within a pit or within a cave,1Rav Hai Gaon writes that these laws were not merely questions of abstract theory. Rather, they carried practical relevance in the Talmudic period, when the Jews frequently had to perform mitzvot clandestinely, to avoid being observed by the Roman authorities. those standing within the pit or cave fulfill their obligation.2for they hear the shofar's sound alone. Needless to say, both they and the person blowing the shofar must fulfill the conditions outlined in Chapter 2 regarding a person's fulfillment of the mitzvah when hearing the shofar blown by a colleague. Concerning those standing outside: If3all they hear4is the sound of the shofar, they fulfill their obligation.5However, If they hear the sound of an echo,6even if they hear the sound of the shofar together with it, they do not fulfill their obligation.7because another sound is mixed together with the desired sound.Similar principles apply regarding one who blows into a giant barrel. If he hears8The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam does not mention people standing within a barrel, because that is a very unlikely eventuality. the sound of a shofar,9alone, he fulfills his obligation. If he hears an echo,10together with the shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation.11The Taz 587:1 explains that this concept is also relevant for synagogues with poor acoustics. If the people hear echoes together with the shofar's sound, they do not fulfill their obligation.At present, there is a more common application of this principle. A person who hears the shofar through a microphone does not fulfill the mitzvah. In addition to the difficulties involved with the use of the microphone on a festival, there is a more essential problem. The listeners are not hearing the sound of the shofar, but rather a second sound, produced by a different mechanism. The microphone converts the sound waves of the shofar to electronic signals; these are then amplified and converted to a different set of sound waves. Hence, by hearing such a sound, we cannot fulfill the mitzvah obligating us to hear a shofar's call.
ב׳
א׳הַכּל חַיָּבִין לִשְׁמֹעַ קוֹל שׁוֹפָר כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְגֵרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים. אֲבָל נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין. מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס חַיָּבִין:
1Everyone is obligated to hear1Though the Rambam's statements are based on Rosh Hashanah 29a, he makes a slight emendation, adding the expression "to hear," in order to emphasize that the mitzvah is hearing, not blowing, the shofar. the sounding of the shofar: priests, levites, Israelites, converts,2Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:17 states:All the gentiles - when they convert and accept all the mitzvot of the Torah - ...are considered as Jews in every regard. and freed slaves.3Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:19 states: "Freed slaves are the same as converts." However, women,4Women are freed from the obligation to perform mitzvot that are linked to a specific time. Nevertheless, based on Rosh Hashanah 33a, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6 states that we are allowed to blow the shofar for them.The Shulchan Aruch continues that the women should not recite a blessing before hearing the shofar. Those statements are based on the Rambam, Hilchot Tzitzit 3:9 and Chapter 6, Halachah 13 below. The rationale is that the blessing recited before a commandment praises God "for commanding us to..." There is no commandment, either from the Torah or the Sages, requiring women to hear the blowing of the shofar. Hence, they should not recite this blessing.The Ashkenazic concept differs. The Ramah (based on Tosafot, Rosh Hashanah, ibid.) maintains that women may recite a blessing. Since our Sages explained that the women are granted reward for fulfilling these mitzvot, it is obvious that the commandment is relevant to them and they may say "who commanded us." slaves,5i.e., gentile slaves (עבדים כנעניים), who are required to fulfill only the mitzvot for which women are obligated. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11, 14:9.) A Jew sold as a slave (עבד עברי) is required to fulfill all the mitzvot. and minors are free of the obligation.6Until a person reaches majority, he is not obligated to perform any of the mitzvot. Nevertheless, when a child reaches an age when he can appreciate the mitzvah, his father is obligated to train him to hear shofar as part of his education. (See Hilchot Nachalot 11:9.)A person who is half slave and half free,7In Hilchot Avadim 7:4, the Rambam explains that a slave can reach this status in one of three ways:a) his owner took money with the intent of freeing half of the slave;b) his master freed half the slave and sold or gave the other half to a colleague;c) a slave belonged to two masters; one freed him and one did not.Such a slave is considered as having two different natures included in the same person. Thus, the aspect of him which is a free man is obligated to hear the shofar, and the aspect which is a slave is not. See also Halachah 3. a tumtum,8an expression meaning "closed one" in Hebrew. It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by a layer of skin. Hence, this person's gender cannot be determined without this skin's removal. Thus, there is a doubt whether this person is male or female. However, should this layer of skin be removed and the person's gender be discovered, there is no difference between him and an ordinary person of the same gender. (See Hilchot Ishut 2:25.) and an androgynous9a term borrowed from the Greek, in which andro means "man," and gynous "woman." It refers to person who has both male and female sexual organs. The Sages were unsure whether to consider such a person a male or a female. (See Hilchot Ishut 2:24 and also the commentary on the following halachah.) are obligated [to hear shofar].10In the latter two cases, the obligation results from the doubt which exists whether these individuals are male (and hence obligated to hear shofar) or not.
ב׳כָּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בַּדָּבָר אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶת הַחַיָּב יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן שֶׁתָּקְעוּ בַּשּׁוֹפָר הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מֵהֶן לֹא יָצָא. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס מוֹצִיא אֶת מִינוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. טֻמְטוּם אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לֹא אֶת מִינוֹ וְלֹא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. שֶׁהַטֻּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא זָכָר וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא נְקֵבָה:
2Whoever is not [himself] obligated regarding this matter1i.e., those mentioned in the previous halachah, a שוטה (a mentally unstable individual) and a חרש (a deaf person). In contrast, a blind person is obligated to hear the shofar. cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah2by blowing the shofar for one who is obligated.3However, a male who has already fulfilled his obligation to hear the shofar can blow the shofar for a colleague (Rabbenu Manoach). Thus, if a woman or a minor blows the shofar, one who hears does not fulfill his obligation.4Nevertheless, they are allowed to blow the shofar for themselves. (See Halachah 7 and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6.)An androgynous can facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for one of his kind,5i.e., another androgynous but not for one who is not of his kind.6a normal adult male or a tumtum.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statement, noting that there is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Yevamot 83a) whether an androgynous is considered as half male and half female, or as a unique entity in his own right. The latter opinion is compatible with the Rambam's decision. However, according to the former opinion, it appears that an androgynous would resemble a person who is half slave and half free. As the following halachah states, such a person cannot blow the shofar even for himself, let alone for others.The Maggid Mishneh defends the Rambam's decision, explaining that the Rambam does not consider the difference of opinion in Yevamot as unresolved. Rather, he, as does Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif), maintains that the halachah follows the latter opinion.Furthermore, the Maggid Mishneh explains that even according to the former opinion, it is possible to differentiate between an androgynous and one who is half slave and half free, the former condition being brought about by God; the latter, by man. A tumtum cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah [for anyone], whether of his kind or not of his kind, for7in his case, the doubt is not about the general category, but an individual question about the particular tumtum's nature if [the layer of skin covering] the tumtum's [genitalia] is cut open, it is possible that it will be discovered that the tumtum is a male,8and the teki'ot he blows are acceptable. but it is possible that it will be discovered that the tumtum is a female.9and hence, unable to blow the shofar for a male.
ג׳וְכֵן מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֲפִלּוּ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאֵין צַד עַבְדוּת שֶׁבּוֹ מוֹצִיא צַד חֵרוּת שֶׁבּוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יֵצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע מִבֶּן חוֹרִין שֶׁיִּתְקַע לוֹ:
3A person who is half slave and half free cannot even facilitate the performance of the mitzvah1by blowing the shofar for himself,2let alone for others, because the aspect of himself which is a slave cannot facilitate the performance of the mitzvah for the aspect of himself which is free.3Every activity performed by such an individual is considered as a combined effort carried out by both aspects of his being. The aspect of his being which is a free man is obligated to hear shofar blown by one who is obligated to perform the mitzvah. Hence, the teki'ot he blows himself include the influence of his slave side, and are not sufficient to facilitate his performance of the mitzvah (Rosh Hashanah 29a).How should he fulfill his obligation? He should hear a free man blow the shofar.4One might ask: Since his hearing the shofar also involves his slave side, how is that hearing sufficient to allow him to fulfill his obligation?The Tzaphnat Paneach explains that there is a difference between hearing the shofar and blowing it. Hearing the shofar is a complete act in and of itself. Hence, since the free side of the person has heard the shofar, he is considered to have performed the mitzvah. In contrast, the blowing of the shofar is merely the preparation for the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Hence, the free side of the person cannot fulfill his obligation by hearing tekiot which were produced by a person whose entire being was not obligated to perform the mitzvah.Based on this explanation, we can understand how such a person fulfills the mitzvah of lulav, for there as well, the act of taking the lulav constitutes rather than prepares for, the fulfilment of the mitzvah.
ד׳הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בִּתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר לְהִתְלַמֵּד לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִן הַמִּתְעַסֵּק לֹא יָצָא. נִתְכַּוֵּן שׁוֹמֵעַ לָצֵאת יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן הַתּוֹקֵעַ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן הַתּוֹקֵעַ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ לָצֵאת לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּן שׁוֹמֵעַ וּמַשְׁמִיעַ:
4A person who occupies himself with blowing the shofar in order to learn1without the intention of fulfilling the mitzvah of hearing the shofar does not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, one who hears the shofar2even though he desires to fulfill the mitzvah from a person who blows it casually3without the intention of facilitating his colleague's performance of the mitzvah does not fulfill his obligation.4for he has heard an unacceptable shofar blast (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 589:5).These laws relate to a question of a much larger scope: Must a person who performs a mitzvah have the intention of doing so or not? Rosh Hashanah 32b, which is the source for these decisions, maintains that such intention is necessary. However, other Talmudic sources imply that there is no need for such intention. Whenever a person performs the deed of a mitzvah, he fulfills his obligation, regardless of his intention.On the surface, the Rambam's own decisions regarding this question appear paradoxical. Hilchot Chametz U'matzah 6:3 states:A person who eats matzah without the intention [of fulfilling the mitzvah] - e.g., if gentiles or thieves force him to eat - fulfills his obligation.There, it appears that the Rambam does not require a person to have the intention to fulfill a mitzvah, for in this instance the only reason the person ate the matzah was the coercion of the gentiles.The commentaries attempt to resolve the issue. The Maggid Mishneh states that to fulfill his obligation, the person being forced to eat the matzah must know that today is Pesach, that he is obligated to eat matzah, and that it is matzah which he is eating. Rabbenu Nissim, the Kessef Mishneh, and Rabbenu Manoach follow a different line of reasoning. They differentiate between eating matzah and hearing a shofar. In the former case, a person's body benefits from the activity regardless of his intention. To support this thesis, they draw a parallel to the following passage.Generally, the Torah frees a person from liability if he commits a transgression while being only מתעסק (performing a deed without any thought). However, a person who eats forbidden foods or engages in forbidden sexual relations in this manner is liable, because he derived pleasure from his activities (Keritot 19b).Similarly, since the person derived physical satisfaction from eating the matzah, even though he was forced to do so, the action is attributed to him. In contrast, since his body did not benefit from hearing the shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation until he hears the shofar blown in the proper manner.As regards halachah l'ma'aseh, in Orach Chayim 589:8, the Shulchan Aruch quotes the Rambam's decision concerning blowing the shofar, stating that a מתעסק does not fulfill the mitzvah. Similar decisions are rendered concerning Kri'at Shema (Orach Chayim 60) and lulav and etrog (Orach Chayim 651).Concerning matzah, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 475:4 quotes the Maggid Mishneh's opinion, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav adds the explanation mentioned in the name of the Kessef Mishneh. (Even so, the Pri Chadash and other commentaries do not accept this decision.)If the person hearing had the intention of fulfilling his obligation, but the person blowing did not have the intention of facilitating the latter's performance of the mitzvah,5Rosh Hashanah 28b quotes Rabbi Zeira as instructing Shamaya: "Have me in mind and blow for me." or the person blowing had the intention of facilitating his colleague's performance of the mitzvah, but the person hearing did not have the intention of fulfilling his obligation, [the person hearing] did not fulfill his obligation.6The Magen Avraham (189:4) states that if a person comes to the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah with the intention to fulfill his obligation to hear the shofar, that intention is sufficient. Even if he has no specific intention while the shofar is being blown, he fulfills his obligation. Rather, both the person hearing and the one allowing him to hear7i.e., the person blowing the shofar must have the [proper] intention.
ה׳מִי שֶׁתָּקַע וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹצִיא כָּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ תְּקִיעָתוֹ וְשָׁמַע הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לָצֵאת יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַתּוֹקֵעַ מִתְכַּוֵּן לְזֶה פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁשָּׁמַע תְּקִיעָתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדְעוֹ יָצָא. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּשְׁמָעֶנּוּ. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אוֹ יוֹשֵׁב בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְשָׁמַע הַתְּקִיעוֹת מִשְּׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר יָצָא אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לָצֵאת. שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר מִתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן:
5If a person blew the shofar with the intention of enabling all those hearing his blowing to perform the mitzvah,1The blower need not have each individual in mind. However, as the previous halachah states, he must have the intention that his blowing enable people to fulfill their obligation to hear shofar. If he blows without that intention, their listening is of no consequence. and a listener heard while having the intention to fulfill his obligation2However, as stated in the previous halachah, if the listener lacks that intention, he does not fulfill his obligation. - even though the person blowing did not have a specific intention that this individual would hear his blowing, nor did he know about him3the listener has fulfilled his obligation, because the blower had in mind all those who heard him. - Rosh Hashanah 29a derives this principle by contrasting the law mentioned in the previous halachah with the law mentioned in this halachah's latter clause. - the listener has fulfilled his obligation, because the blower had in mind all those who heard him.Accordingly, if a person was traveling on a journey4The Magen Avraham (589:5) explains that a person who continues traveling must be sure that he has the intention of fulfilling his obligation. However, if he stops to hear the shofar, that itself is sufficient proof that he desires to fulfill the mitzvah. or was sitting in his home and heard the teki'ot from the person leading the congregation, he has fulfilled his obligation if he had that intention, since the leader of the congregation had the intention of enabling the many to fulfill their obligation.5In his commentary on the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 3:5), the Rambam writes: "the [function of] leader of the congregation was instituted in that capacity only in order to enable the many to fulfill their obligation."
ו׳יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת אֵין תּוֹקְעִין בַּשּׁוֹפָר בְּכָל מָקוֹם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַתְּקִיעָה מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת וּמִן הַדִּין הָיָה שֶׁתּוֹקְעִין יָבוֹא עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְיִדְחֶה שְׁבוּת שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְלָמָּה אֵין תּוֹקְעִין גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִטְּלֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ וְיוֹלִיכֶנּוּ לְמִי שֶׁיִּתְקַע לוֹ וְיַעֲבִירֶנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. אוֹ יוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת וְיָבוֹא לִידֵי אִסּוּר סְקִילָה. שֶׁהַכּל חַיָּבִים בִּתְקִיעָה וְאֵין הַכּל בְּקִיאִין לִתְקֹעַ:
6If the festival of Rosh Hashanah falls on the Sabbath,1According to the fixed calendar we use, Rosh Hashanah never falls on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday (Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 7:1). Thus, the second day of Rosh Hashanah will never fall on the Sabbath. However, it is not at all infrequent for the first day of Rosh Hashanah to fall on the Sabbath. the shofar is not sounded in every place.2However, it is sounded in certain places, as explained in Halachot 8 and 9. There is an allusion to this in the Torah itself. Though Numbers 10:10 describes Rosh Hashanah as a day of "the sounding of the shofar," Leviticus 23:24 refers to it as a day of "the remembrance of the sounding [of the shofar" - i.e., this refers to Rosh Hashanah which falls on the Sabbath, when the shofar is not actually sounded (Rashi, Rosh Hashanah 32a). [This law was enacted] even though blowing [the shofar] was forbidden only as sh'vut.3See the commentary on Chapter 1, Halachah 4 for a definition of the term sh'vut. Rosh Hashanah 29b equates the blowing of the shofar with removing bread from the oven. It appears from Shabbat 117b that the removal of bread from the oven was forbidden only because it is "a weekday act," not in the spirit of the Sabbath. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 588:4.)It would be appropriate for [the shofar] to be sounded, for a positive commandment of the Torah should supersede sh'vut instituted by the Sages.4A question can be raised, based on the Rambam's statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 4:Regarding a shofar to be used on Rosh Hashanah: It is forbidden to violate the festival's laws to obtain it. This applies even when the forbidden practice is in the category of sh'vut.The Lechem Mishneh offers a number of resolutions to this difficulty. Among them:a) Had the proper attention been paid to the matter before Rosh Hashanah, the sh'vut mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 with regard to obtaining the shofar would not exist. In contrast, the sh'vut involved in blowing the shofar cannot be avoided.b) The sh'vut mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 must be violated before the mitzvah is performed. Hence, there is no way the prohibition can be relaxed in the mere expectation that a mitzvah will be performed. In contrast, in this instance, the performance of the mitzvah and the sh'vut occur concurrently.However, the order of the halachot here suggests a different explanation. As the Rambam states in the following halachah, certain leniencies are taken regarding the sh'vut of sounding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah (since, as mentioned above, it is forbidden only because it is a "weekday act"). In contrast, the activities mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4 are of a more severe nature, and hence no leniency may be taken in their regard. If so, why is the shofar not sounded?Because of a decree [of the Sages] lest a person take it in his hands and carry it to a colleague so that the latter can blow for him,5The Rambam alters the expression used by Rosh Hashanah 29b, which states: "perhaps he will take it to a skilled person so that the latter will teach him." Perhaps, the emendation was made because it is more likely that a person would desire that his colleague blow for him than begin to teach him on Rosh Hashanah itself. and [in the process,] carry it four cubits in the public domain or transfer it from one domain to another,6Hilchot Shabbat 12:8 equates the two and explains the nature of this melachah. It must be noted that the phrase "transfer it from one domain..." is the Rambam's addition and does not appear in Rosh Hashanah, ibid. (Indeed, Tosafot, Megillah 4b explains that there is no suspicion that the latter prohibition will be violated.) and thus violate a prohibition punishable by being stoned to death.7as is the commission of all Shabbat melachot (Hilchot Shabbat 1:1-2.) [This is necessary because] all are obligated in the mitzvah of blowing the shofar, but not all are skilled in it.8A similar expression is also found in Hilchot Megillah 1:13, explaining why the Megillah is never read on the Sabbath. It must be noted that while the Temple was standing, a similar decree was not enacted on the first day of Sukkot which fell on the Sabbath, even though it is possible that a person would carry his lulav in a forbidden manner. Note our commentary on Chapter 7, Halachot 13 and 14, which explains the difference between the two festivals.The fact that a Rabbinic decree can cause a mitzvah to be nullified - particularly as significant a mitzvah as the blowing of the shofar - has been the subject of much discussion by the Rabbis. In his commentary on the tractate of Sukkah, Rabbenu Nissim states that this decree was instituted only because in most Jewish communities, the people were not aware of the date the Rabbis had established for Rosh Hashanah. Hence, since the people could not be sure that they were in fact performing a mitzvah, the Rabbinic decree had the power to negate its performance. Even in the places where they were conscious of the proper date, they would not blow the shofar in such a year, so that great divisions in Torah practice would not be created among the Jewish people.In Likkutei Torah, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi explains the matter from a mystical perspective. He writes that the Sabbath itself generates spiritual influences which resemble those produced by the blowing of the shofar. Thus, there is no necessity to blow the shofar, and the Sages were therefore willing to allow such a decree to negate its observance.
ז׳הַתִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעוּ לְחִנּוּךְ אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אוֹתָן מִלִּתְקֹעַ בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ. וּמֻתָּר לְגָדוֹל שֶׁיִּתְעַסֵּק עִמָּהֶן כְּדֵי לְלַמְּדָן בְּיוֹם טוֹב. בֵּין קָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְחִנּוּךְ בֵּין קָטָן שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְחִנּוּךְ. שֶׁהַתְּקִיעָה אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת:
7Children who have not reached an age at which they can be educated:1Rabbenu Manoach explains that this refers to children of six or seven. We need not prevent them from blowing [the shofar] on a Sabbath2even though blowing the shofar on the Sabbath is prohibited for an adult which is not the festival of Rosh Hashanah, so that they will learn [to blow].3This halachah is not directly related to the laws of Rosh Hashanah, but rather to the laws of the Sabbath. If a child has not reached the age where he can be educated concerning the mitzvot, his parents are not required to prevent him from violating any of the mitzvot (Yevamot 114a).The law stated here represents a reversal of the Rambam's understanding of Rosh Hashanah 33a from that in his commentary on the Mishnah. Indeed, his change in interpretation caused the Ra'avad to object to this halachah. It is interesting to note that the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:9) and the primary interpretation mentioned in the Halachot of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif) - sources which the Rambam relies upon heavily - follow the Rambam's initial approach.An adult is permitted to be involved in the instruction [of children4He may tell them to blow the shofar and teach them how to blow (Maggid Mishneh). in the blowing of shofar] on the festival.5even though the blowing of the shofar is prohibited on the Sabbath. [This applies] concerning both children who have reached an age at which they can be educated and those who have not reached that age, for blowing [the shofar] is prohibited only as sh'vut.6Since the prohibition against blowing the shofar is not severe, a number of leniencies are taken in this regard. The shofar is sounded for women (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 589:6), and similarly, additional blasts are sounded to "upset Satan" (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 596:1). However, it is forbidden for an adult to sound the shofar on Rosh Hashanah unnecessarily. Nevertheless, even a child who has reached the age when he is educated concerning the mitzvot need not follow this stringency (Ramah, ibid.).
ח׳כְּשֶׁגָּזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִתְקֹעַ בְּשַׁבָּת לֹא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיָה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּם וְהָיָה בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הָיוּ הַכּל תּוֹקְעִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת כָּל זְמַן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין יוֹשְׁבִין. וְלֹא אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא כָּל עִיר שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּתוֹךְ תְּחוּם יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וְהָיְתָה רוֹאָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּתוֹךְ הַנַּחַל. וְהָיְתָה שׁוֹמַעַת קוֹל תְּקִיעַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר. וְהָיְתָה יְכוֹלָה לָבוֹא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נָהָר מַפְסִיק בֵּינֵיהֶם. אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר הָיוּ תּוֹקְעִים בְּשַׁבָּת כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הָיוּ תּוֹקְעִין:
8When [the Sages] decreed not to sound [the shofar] on the Sabbath, they applied that decree only to places which lacked a court.1The Sages forbade sounding the shofar on the Sabbath lest someone carry it in a forbidden manner, as explained in the previous halachah. However, that decree was not applied to places where the Sanhedrin, Israel's supreme court, held its sessions. The influence of the court would be felt throughout the entire city and its surroundings. Hence, the people would be more scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot. (See the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:1 and the following halachah.) However, while the Temple was standing and the Supreme Court was seated in Jerusalem,2After the Temple was constructed, the Sanhedrin held its sessions in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was forced to move from that place to other locations in Jerusalem. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:12-13.) everyone3i.e., not only was the shofar sounded at the seat of the Sanhedrin and on the Temple mount, but throughout the city; even private individuals were allowed to blow the shofar (Rosh Hashanah 30a). would sound the shofar in Jerusalem throughout the entire period the court held its sessions there.4The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements. He disagrees with the Rambam on two points:a) while the Temple was standing, the Rambam maintains that the shofar was sounded throughout Jerusalem, while the Ra'avad maintains that it was sounded in the Temple alone.b) after the Temple's destruction, the Rambam maintains that the shofar was not sounded in Jerusalem, while the Ra'avad argues that it was.The difference between the two depends on the Rambam's interpretation of the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 4:1):When the festival of Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath, they would sound the shofar in the Mikdash, but not in the country at large.In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam writes: "We have already explained to you several times (see Ma'aser Sheni 2:4, Shekalim 1:3, Sukkah 3:10) that the term mikdash refers to the entire city of Jerusalem." Thus, he maintains that if Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath while the Temple was standing, the shofar would be sounded throughout the city. After the destruction of the Temple, this practice was discontinued.[This did not apply] to the people of Jerusalem alone.5The influence of the Sanhedrin could be felt even on the outskirts of the city. Rather, every city that was within the outer limits6This refers to the תחום שבת - 2000 cubits from the outermost house from each point on the city's circumference. (See Hilchot Shabbat, Chapters 27 and 28.) of Jerusalem7There were a number of smaller villages surrounding Jerusalem which met all the requirements specified below. and [whose inhabitants] could:see Jerusalem8i.e., excluding those within a wadi - below the mountains, who could not see Jerusalem. - i.e., excluding those within a wadi;hear the shofar blown in Jerusalem9i.e., excluding those on the mountaintops - Since they were situated on the mountaintops, they could see the city even from afar. However, the sound would not carry that far. - i.e., excluding those on the mountaintops; andtravel to Jerusalem10i.e., excluding those separated by a wadi - which they would be unable to cross - i.e., excluding those separated by a wadi from the citythe11The exclusions mentioned by the Rambam are quoted from Rosh Hashanah, ibid., based on the text of the Mishnah. The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 4:1) interprets the Mishnah slightly differently. people of these cities would blow the shofar on the Sabbath as in Jerusalem. However, in the other cities of Israel,12even where the courts held session they would not sound [the shofar on the Sabbath].
ט׳וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁחָרַב הַמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בֵּית דִּין קָבוּעַ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה סָמוּךְ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹקְעִין בּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת. וְאֵין תּוֹקְעִין בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ אֲבָל שְׁאָר בָּתֵּי דִּינִין אֵין תּוֹקְעִין בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין. וְאֵין תּוֹקְעִין אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין גָּדוֹל בִּלְבַד כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין וַאֲפִלּוּ נִנְעֲרוּ לַעֲמֹד וְלֹא עָמְדוּ תּוֹקְעִין בִּפְנֵיהֶם. אֲבָל חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין אֵין תּוֹקְעִין. וְלָמָּה תּוֹקְעִין בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּית דִּין זְרִיזִין הֵן וְלֹא יָבוֹאוּ הַתּוֹקְעִין לְהַעֲבִיר הַשּׁוֹפָר בִּפְנֵיהֶם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מַזְהִירִין אֶת הָעָם וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָן:
9At present, while the Temple is destroyed, wherever a court whose judges received semichah1Semichah is the term used to refer to the permission granted to a judge to act in that capacity. Only a judge who himself possesses semichah can convey this distinction to a colleague. Moses gave Joshua and the seventy elders semichah, and they began a chain that stretched over many generations, ending several hundred years after the destruction of the Temple. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:1-2.) in Eretz Yisrael2semichah could be conveyed only in Eretz Yisrael (ibid.:6). permanently holds sessions,3i.e., if, on Rosh Hashanah, the court held special sessions in a city where it was not normally located, the shofar would not be sounded. (See the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 4:1.) the shofar is sounded on the Sabbath.4The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 29b) states:When the Temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai ordained that the shofar be sounded in every place where a court holds sessions.The Talmud elaborates:[After the destruction of the Temple,] Rosh Hashanah once fell on the Sabbath, and all the cities gathered together [in Yavneh]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai asked the family of Beteira: "Shall we blow?""Let us consider the matter," they replied to him."Let us blow, and then consider the matter after having blown," he answered them."Let us consider the matter," they replied again.He told them, "The sounding of a horn has already been heard in Yavneh. Once a deed has been performed, no further discussion is entertained." Furthermore, the shofar is sounded on the Sabbath only in a court that has sanctified the new moon.5Originally, the months were sanctified by the courts after hearing the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon. (See Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, Chapters 1 and 2.) However, the shofar will not be sounded in other courts, even though their judges have received semichah.6The Rambam's statements represent a middle road in a difference of opinion between the Rabbinical giants upon whom our understanding of the Talmud is based. Rashi (Rosh Hashanah 29a) states that the shofar was sounded on the Sabbath only in the presence of the Supreme Sanhedrin. Thus, this law applied only in Yavneh and in the few other cities where the Sanhedrin subsequently held its session.Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (the Rif) quotes this law in his Halachot even though he quotes only those laws which are applicable in his age. From this it appears that he maintains that the shofar may be sounded in the presence of any court of stature on the Sabbath, even if its judges do not possess semichah. Indeed, the Ramban and Rabbenu Nissim write that Rav Yitzchak Alfasi would have the shofar sounded in his own court when Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath. Similarly, the text Haezer records that the author saw a Sage from Damascus who stated that he saw the shofar blown on Rosh Hashanah which fell on a Sabbath.(The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid., does not mention the need for the judges to possess semichah. Thus, it is possible that he also originally subscribed to this view.)In the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam's position lies in between these views. On one hand, unlike Rav Yitzchak Alfasi, he requires that the judges possess semichah and be of sufficient stature to have sanctified the new moon (thus, excluding any contemporary courts). Nevertheless, unlike Rashi, he allows the shofar to be sounded in the presence of any court that has those qualifications, and not the Supreme Sanhedrin alone. Also, the shofar is sounded only in the presence of a high court.7Our translation of בית דין גדול is based on the Kessef Mishneh, who explains that in this context the term refers to an established court of judges with semichah, and not the Supreme Sanhedrin, as is sometimes the case. Indeed, authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah from Yemen omit the word גדול from the above expression.It may be sounded during the entire time they are in session.8but only while they are in session. If they have risen, the shofar can no longer be sounded. However... Even after they9the judges have begun preparing to rise10as long as they have not risen - the shofar may be sounded before them - Though the Sages (Rosh Hashanah 30a) raised a question on this matter and left it unanswered, the Rambam allows the shofar to be sounded under such circumstances. Since the question concerns a Rabbinic decree, the more lenient approach is taken (Maggid Mishneh). - as long as they have not risen - the shofar may be sounded before them. However, outside the court, the shofar may not be sounded.11In this aspect, there was a difference between the sounding of the shofar on the Sabbath between Jerusalem and Yavneh. In Jerusalem, the influence of the Temple and the court was felt so strongly that even outside the presence of the court, the shofar could be sounded. In contrast, in Yavneh and other cities where courts were located, the shofar was sounded only in the presence of a court (Rosh Hashanah, ibid.).Why is the shofar allowed to be sounded in the court? Because the court is scrupulous [in the observance of the mitzvot] and, in its presence, those who blow the shofar will not carry the shofar in the public domain, for the court will warn the people and inform them.12The S'dei Chemed derives a general principle from this law. Hilchot Shabbat 21:27 states that all Sabbath and festival prohibitions that were categorized as sh'vut were suspended in the Temple, because the priests were scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot and there was no danger that any infringement of Torah law would occur. Similarly, the above text continues, all decrees of this nature may be suspended in the presence of a high court, because the court will ensure that the Torah's laws will be kept.This logic runs contrary to a statement of Rabbenu Nissim, who writes that although Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted the blowing of the shofar on the Sabbath in the presence of a court, he was not that lenient regarding the taking of the lulav and etrog. Thus, we see that the leniency mentioned here applies to the shofar alone and not to other cases.
י׳בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאָנוּ עוֹשִׂין שְׁנֵי יָמִים בַּגָּלוּת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתּוֹקְעִין בְּרִאשׁוֹן תּוֹקְעִין בְּשֵׁנִי. וְאִם חָל יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת וְלֹא הָיָה בַּמָּקוֹם בֵּית דִּין הָרְאוּיִין לִתְקֹעַ תּוֹקְעִין בְּשֵׁנִי בִּלְבַד:
10In the present age, when we celebrate Rosh Hashanah in the exile for two days,1There is a slight imprecision with the Rambam's statements. Rosh Hashanah was celebrated for two days throughout almost the totality of Eretz Yisrael even while the Temple was standing. It was impossible to notify the people in most of the land (for the messengers were not allowed to travel more than two thousand cubits beyond Jerusalem) whether or not the court had substantiated the testimony of the witnesses on the day when Rosh Hashanah was expected to fall. (See Beitzah 4b-5a; Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:7-8.) the shofar is sounded on the second day just as it is sounded on the first.2This refers to the actual sounding of the shofar. According to Sephardic custom, there is a difference concerning the recitation of the blessing shehecheyanu (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 499:3).If the first day3As mentioned above, according to the fixed calendar which we employ at present, it is impossible for the second day of Rosh Hashanah to fall on the Sabbath. falls on the Sabbath, those who were not in the presence of a court fit to blow the shofar on the Sabbath4The Kessef Mishneh notes that there is some difficulty correlating this statement with that of the previous halachah, which implies that, at present, no courts are of sufficient stature to blow the shofar on the Sabbath. Among the possible resolutions to this difficulty are:a) as the Rambam writes in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:3, until the age of Abbaye and Ravvah, there were courts of judges who sanctified the new month based on the testimony of witnesses. Thus, the Rambam could be referring to such a court.b) In Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:11, the Rambam discusses the possibility of the renewal of the practice of semichah. He could be referring to such an eventuality in the present instance. may blow the shofar on the second day alone.5This is our practice at present.